No Evangelicals on the Supreme Court! WHY ???

The word Baptist covers a lot of territory.

 

That is a sad list of people in our court. Our government should only have true born-again Christians committed to Jesus Christ as Lord and the Bible as the Word of God and guide for our laws.

What we have now is a man-centered. It will end up in tyranny.

 

Roman Catholics, or Catholicism, is not biblical Christianity.

 

We could use a better mix on the Court but the Constitution doesn't require it. Article VI says: "no religious test shall ever be rquired as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Of course, when that was written the religious makeup of this country was a lot different than it is now.

 

Who would be deciding who is and who is not a truly born-again Chrisitian?

 

I could not disagree more for more reasons than I can possibly go into.

Or wait, maybe this is just pot stirring?

 

Purely theoretical because it won't happen, but would you favour a constitutional amendment repealing the 'no religious test' clause?

 

Just think, if there were nine Baptist preachers on the Supreme Court, taxes would have to be raised just to fund the pot lucks.

 

I've read some articles that postulate that not enough evangelicals go to law school and enter the access stream to the high court, due at least in part to trying to practice separation from the world rather than engaging the culture. There is a claim that eschatology has something to do with it also. As some might say, "The world's gonna end soon anyway, so why bother? Our job is to preach the Gospel and nothing else till Jesus comes."

I think there's at least some truth to that. It's unfortunate that too many evangelical's idea of engaging the culture is having rock bands perform in church, while the Catholics, Jews, and Mormons are taking over the country by going to college and advancing to leadership positions in all areas of life.

 

Then again, we have only had one Catholic President. Most of the others have been Protestant and/or Baptist, depending on your labeling system.

 

If Congress or the Supreme Court was as argumentative and hostile as BaptistBoard or the Theology list anyone think the US would be a better place to live?

 

Yes. I would exclude Muslims because the only government their religion recognizes is a theocracy (Muslim theocracy of course). I don't think officers of the United States should have that mindset and if the founders of our country could have peered into the future, I believe the exclusion would be there.

 

That, of course is an opinion. The Treaty of Tripoli 1797 gives us an indication of another point of view.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html - Article 11

I would be strongly opposed to any religious test. That would be a tremendous erosion of our freedoms. What, if like is happening in parts of Europe, evangelical ministers were deemed to be a threat?

 

The Treaty of Tripoli only demonstrates that the United States was not founded on the Christian religion and, by inference, on no other religion.

And Europe is expected to be majority Muslim before the end of this century. Hmm . . . could there be a nexus between the ascendency of Islam in Europe (and Canada for that matter) and the persecution of evangelical ministers? Christians defended Europe from Muslim invasions for 1,000 years and were ultimately successful at the battle of Lepanto in 1571. Now we seem to have forgotten history and have taken down the gates and the bulwarks and they are flowing in at alarming speed. Europe will soon be lost and we are next. Dearborn Michigan is an American city already under Muslim control.

 

Of course, and therefore no religious test should be required. They did know about the threat of Islam and did not act.

You helped make a good point. If religious test should be required now to keep Muslims out of office who is to say that it cannot be used against Christians next?

 

Because we're in the majority, and as long as we are, we have the power to see that they remain a small minority. With all due respect, it is attitudes like yours that enables minorities to become large enough that they have power.

 

Grin - excellent. So in your mind the very foundation of our freedom, the first amendment, is to blame for minorities gaining power? You would really have us amend the Constitution to remove the ban on religious test? I guess we should also repeal the First Amendment?

I'll take my America the way she is and has thrived, with total religious freedom and toleration, thank you. I love our Constitution just the way it his.

 

I assume you would also exclude Catholics since they recognise the pope as a supreme authority.

How about born again Christians since we admit that our citizenship is in heaven?

I am pretty certain, since Islam was already well known, that our brilliant founders knew exactly what they were doing. Praise God for their wisdom.

 

I'm a fan of the First Amendment but the Supreme Court should apply it the way it was written and limit its application to actions of Congress. That's the way it was until 1961. For example, until 1877 the New Hampshire Constitution required members of the state legislature to be of the Protestant religion. Until 1835 the North Carolina Constitution allowed only Protestants to hold public office. From 1835-1876 it allowed only Christians (including Catholics) to hold public office.

The Bill of Rights was written to restrict the power of the United States, not the power of the individual states.